DOCSLIB.ORG

Venezuela's Withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Venezuela's Withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations And Area: Latin America - ARI 54/2006 (Translated from Spanish) Date: 30/5/2006 Venezuela’s Withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations and the Consequences for Regional Integration (Part I) Carlos Malamud ∗ Theme: The unexpected announcement by Venezuela of its decision to withdraw from the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), plus the nationalisation of Bolivian hydrocarbons, have further shaken the already unsteady scenario of South American regional integration. Summary: The President of Venezuela took advantage of a meeting with his colleagues from Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay on 19 April 2006 to unexpectedly announce the country’s withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations (Comunidad Andina de Naciones or CAN), the sub-regional integration block formed by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, whose annual trade turnover totals close to US$9 billion. Ten days later, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales announced the nationalisation of the country’s hydrocarbons. Venezuela insists that withdrawal from the CAN was a direct result of the immediate harm it would be caused by the free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by Colombia and Peru. Regardless of the real reasons behind Commander Chavez’s attitude, Venezuela’s move sent a deep shudder of concern through other CAN members and further stirred the already choppy waters of regional integration in the continent. In the Andean Community, Colombia and Peru held Chávez responsible for withdrawing from the block, Bolivia clearly aligned itself alongside Venezuela and Ecuador took a more neutral stance, although it defended the process of regional integration. Theoretically, Venezuela’s withdrawal from the CAN should imply a greater and more active role for the Bolivarian regime in Mercosur, which has not pleased Argentina and Brazil, who are suspicious of attempts by Chávez to align with the smaller countries in the block, Paraguay and Uruguay, which in turn have their bones of contention with the two major players. At the same time, Chávez was scathingly critical of Mercosur, adding that it needed to make a social turnaround if it did not wish to end up like the CAN. Venezuela’s withdrawal from the CAN threatens to undermine the viability of the two major regional integration blocks in South America (CAN and Mercosur) and places a major question mark over the future of the South American Community of Nations (Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones or CSN), Brazil’s brainchild, and could even jeopardise Brazil’s leadership in South America. This threat was corroborated by two subsequent events: the Havana Summit, where Evo Morales decided to join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas or ALBA), alongside Commanders Castro and Chávez; and, more worryingly for regional equilibrium, the Bolivian nationalisation decree. Despite the smiling faces at the Puerto Iguazú photo shoot which apparently augured well for the unviable South American gas pipeline, positions are starting to polarise and it is regional integration itself that is under the knife. ∗ Senior Analyst, Latin America, Elcano Royal Institute 1 Area: Latin America - ARI 54/2006 (Translated from Spanish) Date: 30/5/2006 Analysis: Venezuela’s Withdrawal On Wednesday 19 April, at a meeting in Asunción, Paraguay, between the Presidents of Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay, Hugo Chávez announced Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Andean Community (Comunidad Andina de Naciones or CAN), which he uncompromisingly branded ‘a big lie’, saying it had been left mortally wounded after the signing of the FTAs between Colombia and Peru and the United States. According to Chávez, it makes no sense for Venezuela to remain in the CAN, a body which serves only the elites and transnational companies and not ‘our people, the Indians and the poor’. Accordingly, Venezuela should do something else. His complaint suggested that while Latin Americans are in the doldrums and some are trying to pull them together, ‘those who do not want us to integrate do have their strategy’ that is clearly aimed at disintegration. Chávez thinks that although Latin American countries know the essentials of regional integration, they do not have the right strategy to implement it. That is why he has opted for Mercosur, although without relinquishing his star project, ALBA, which at the recent Havana Summit gained another supporter, and expects to add Ollanta Humala and Daniel Ortega (present at the event) if they win their respective elections. The decision to opt for Mercosur is not a naive one, since it is a regional block which moves US$150 billion in annual trade, versus the CAN’s US$9 billion, and is much more significant from Chávez’s point of view. However, since its creation, the CAN has generated sizeable exports among its members. 2005 was the second consecutive year of record highs, at US$8.92 billion, up 21% on 2004 (US$7.30 billion). The CAN dates back to 1969, when Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru signed the Andean Pact to set up a customs union within 10 years and, while Venezuela joined in 1972, Chile withdrew in 1976, under the Pinochet dictatorship, triggering the Community’s first crisis. Politically, Mercosur might be seen as more cohesive than CAN, although internal wrangling (Paraguay and Uruguay against their ‘mistreatment’ by Argentina and Brazil, and Argentina against Uruguay due to the construction of the Fray Bentos paper mills) plus the announcement by Uruguay that it plans to strengthen ties with the United States do not augur well for what was formerly the ‘model’ for Latin American integration. The announcement of its withdrawal from the CAN came when Venezuela was exercising the rotating presidency, enabling it to block some urgent initiatives, such as the call for a presidential summit. Consequently, Chávez either knowingly and skilfully or unwittingly managed to undermine the entire South American geo-strategic game board and not just the CAN. With one fell swoop, all South American Foreign Affairs ministries offices were affected. Subsequently, President Morales added fuel to the flames by suggesting that some CAN governments (in direct reference to Colombia and Peru) had made a deliberate effort to weaken it, and he branded President Toledo a ‘traitor’ for signing the free trade agreement with the United States. He also said he was not surprised by President Uribe’s support for the free trade agreement, since ‘we all know where he comes from’. At the same time, he aimed his criticism at Allan Wagner, the Secretary General of the CAN, saying that ‘he had played dirty’. Vice-President García Lineras underpinned the Bolivian position by indicating that ‘when a person tells the truth, he has no need to apologise’. The purpose of the Asunción meeting was to announce the construction of a gas pipeline between Bolivia and Paraguay, to be partly financed by Venezuela and which would eventually supply gas to Uruguay. No-one quite understood Chávez’s presence at the meeting, except because of his interest in evidencing leadership in energy matters and his sponsorship of the Morales government in Bolivia. In fact, by supporting construction of the pipeline, Chávez sent a clear message that he is able to act in the south of the 2 Area: Latin America - ARI 54/2006 (Translated from Spanish) Date: 30/5/2006 continent without being spoon-fed by Brazil and Argentina, to the irritation of Presidents Lula and Kirchner. The next day, in a speech during his visit to Brazil, Chávez said that the free trade agreements between the United States and Colombia and Peru were a nail in the CAN’s coffin and sparked his decision to withdraw, since it was to become a kind of small Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), undermining Andean integration and contravening regional trade dispositions. In contrast, Colombia and Peru cite ‘Decision 598’ by the CAN, relating to the Cartagena Agreement, which establishes that in the event that it is not possible to negotiate as a community, bilateral talks may take place. Article 2 of the Decision clearly provides as follows: preserve Andean law, take into consideration the trade sensitivities of the other Andean partners in regard to free trade and maintain an adequate exchange of information and consultations throughout talks, within a framework of transparency and solidarity. The two governments under fire from Chávez claim that they have fulfilled all these requirements and that it was Venezuela which breached Decision 598 when it decided to link up with Mercosur. In view of this background, the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Oscar Maúrtua, said that the CAN allows its members to sign free trade agreements with the United States or the EU in order to open new markets. Although the CAN treaty establishes that after denouncing the Cartagena Agreement the withdrawing country should maintain the free trade benefits for its former partners during five years, traders in the region, especially in Colombia, pessimistically suggest that the chances of Chávez turning a blind eye to international law are not low. However, Chávez did offer a glimmer of hope that trade flows might remain open via bilateral agreements, although without specifying their main characteristics. This possibility was received by some Colombian business organisations as the lesser of two evils, although they recognised that they would lack the efficacy of a multilateral agreement. Chávez’s move to withdraw from G3 (the Group of Three), also comprising Colombia and Mexico, has made evident that withdrawal from the CAN is all but final. The announcement came at the same time as the decision by Chávez not to attend the inauguration ceremony of the new President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias. Arias had been hoping to take advantage of the occasion to set up a meeting between Chávez and Uribe to iron out differences in regard to bilateral agreements.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alba and Free Trade in the Americas
    CUBA AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE GLOBAL TRADE SYSTEMS: ALBA AND FREE TRADE IN THE AMERICAS LARRY CATÁ BACKER* & AUGUSTO MOLINA** ABSTRACT The ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América) (Bolivarian Alternative for The People of Our America), the command economy alternative to the free trade model of globalization, is one of the greatest and least understood contributions of Cuba to the current conversation about globalization and economic harmonization. Originally conceived as a means for forging a unified front against the United States by Cuba and Venezuela, the organization now includes Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominica, and Bolivia. ALBA is grounded in the notion that globalization cannot be left to the private sector but must be overseen by the state in order to maximize the welfare of its citizens. The purpose of this Article is to carefully examine ALBA as both a system of free trade and as a nexus point for legal and political resistance to economic globalization and legal internationalism sponsored by developed states. The Article starts with an examination of ALBA’s ideology and institutionalization. It then examines ALBA as both a trade organization and as a political vehicle for confronting the power of developed states in the trade context within which it operates. ALBA remains * W. Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law, Dickinson Law School; Affiliate Professor, School of International Affairs, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; and Director, Coalition for Peace & Ethics, Washington, D.C. The author may be contacted at [email protected]. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Conference, The Measure of a Revolution: Cuba 1959-2009, held May 7–9, 2009 at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Sucre Protocol
    SUCRE PROTOCOL THE GOVERNMENTS OF BOLIVIA, COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, PERU AND VENEZUELA; AGREE through their duly authorized plenipotentiary representatives to the following amendments to the Andean Subregional Integration Agreement (Cartagena Agreement): Article 1. – In Article 2 replace the term "gross national product" by "gross domestic product." Article 2.- Substitute the following text for Article 3: "Article 3.- The following mechanisms and measures, among others, shall be used to achieve the objectives of this Agreement: The intensification of integration with the other regional economic blocs and of political, social, economic, and commercial relations with extra-regional systems; The gradual harmonization of economic and social policies and dovetailing of national laws on pertinent matters; Joint programming, the intensification of subregional industrialization and the execution of industrial programs and other forms of industrial integration; A more advanced trade liberalization schedule than the commitments arising out of the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo; A Common External Tariff; Programs to accelerate the development of the agricultural and agribusiness sectors; The channeling of internal and external resources to the Subregion to finance the investments that are needed for the integration process; Programs in the field of services and of the deregulation of intra-subregional trade in services; Physical integration; and Preferential treatment for Bolivia and Ecuador. The following economic and social cooperation programs and actions shall be carried out in coordination to complement the above-cited mechanisms: Programs designed to expedite scientific and technological development; Actions in the field of border integration; Tourism programs; Actions for the use and conservation of natural resources and the environment; Social development programs; and Actions in the field of social communication Article 3.- Eliminate Article 26c).
    [Show full text]
  • The Andean Community at the Crossroads
    Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas Discussion Paper Number 16 Natural Resources & Foreign Investors: A tale of three Andean countries Leonardo Stanley April 2008 The Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas, founded in 2004, brings together researchers from several countries in the Americas who have carried out empirical studies of the social and environmental impacts of economic liberalization. The goal of the Working Group Project is to contribute empirical research and policy analysis to the ongoing policy debates on national economic development strategies and international trade. The project also brings more prominently into U.S. policy debates the rich body of research carried out by Latin American experts, as well as their informed perspectives on trade and development policies. Hosted by Tufts' Global Development and Environment Institute, the Working Group Project has four initiatives. The Working Group’s web page is http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/WGOverview.htm Leonardo Stanley is an economist at Universidad de Mar del Plata and a visiting researcher in the Department of Economics at CEDES. He has previously worked in the Programa de Teoría Económica at Instituto de Desarrollo Económico y Social in Buenos Aires. Leonardo Stanley received his MA in Science in Economics from Queen Mary & Westfield, London University, and a Diplome d’Etudes Approfondies from Universidad de Evry Val-d'Essone. © 2008, Leonardo Stanley and the Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas Natural Resources & Foreign Investors: A tale of three Andean countries Leonardo Stanley Introduction Over the past 25 years, Latin American governments have undertaken a structural-adjustment process including, among other actions, the elimination of trade barriers, privatization of large public domestic firms, and deregulation of markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Agenda Agenda a Common Toward Toward a Common Agenda Agenda a Common Toward
    Andean-U.S. Dialogue Forum February 2011 This report has been developed by The Carter Center and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) as part of the Andean-U.S. Dialogue Forum. It is intended to promote more effective cooperation by identifying convergences and divergences in priorities among the countries and the peoples of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and the United States. Developed as a "Common Agenda", it seeks to enhance understanding of the internal dynamics in e ach country and reduce stereotypes that impede cooperation. The report highlights the transnational issues of energy, climate change, trade, and illegal drugs, Andean Countries and the United States the for Agenda a Common Toward recognizing that progress requires a collective response. The Carter Center The Carter Center was founded in 1982 by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, in partnership with Emory University, to advance peace and health worldwide. A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization, the Center has helped to improve life for people in more TowardToward aa CommonCommon AgendaAgenda than 70 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity; preventing diseases; and improving forfor thethe AndeanAndean CountriesCountries mental health care. andand thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates International IDEA International IDEA is an intergovernmental organization with 25 member countries. The Institute supports democratic institutions and processes worldwide by providing resources to strengthen capacities, developing policy proposals and supporting democratic reforms. International IDEA's main areas of expertise are electoral processes, political party systems, constitutional processes, gender and democracy. ISBN: 978-91-86565-09-1 Toward a Common Agenda for the Andean Countries and the United States Andean-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin America and the Caribbean in the World Economy
    2014 Latin America and the Caribbean in the World Economy Regional integration and value chains in a challenging external environment 2014 Alicia Bárcena Executive Secretary Antonio Prado Deputy Executive Secretary Osvaldo Rosales Chief, Division of International Trade and Integration Ricardo Pérez Chief, Publications and Web Services Division Latin America and the Caribbean in the World Economy is the annual report prepared by the Division of International Trade and Integration of ECLAC. The ECLAC subregional headquarters for the Caribbean, the ECLAC subregional headquarters in Mexico and the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) assisted with the preparation of this year’s edition. The production of the report was overseen by Osvaldo Rosales, Chief of the Division of International Trade and Integration. Keiji Inoue, Senior Economic Affairs Officer of the Division, was responsible for its technical coordination. The following staff members of the Commission assisted in the preparation and drafting of the chapters: José Elías Durán, Sebastián Herreros, Sheldon McLean, Nanno Mulder and Dayna Zaclicever. The authors are grateful for contributions made to the work by Sebastián Castresana, Carlos D’Elía, Myriam Echeverría, Alfonso Finot, Tania García-Millán, René Hernández, Antoine Le Squeren, Jorge Mario Martínez, José Carlos Mattos, Javier Meneses, Yoshimichi Murakami, Nahuel Oddone, Ramón Padilla and Gustavo Zanabria. Notes The following symbols have been used in the tables in this publication: • Three dots (…) indicate that data are not available or are not separately reported. • A dash (-) indicates that the amount is nil or negligible. • A comma (,) is used to indicate decimals. • The word “dollars” refers to United States dollars, unless otherwise specified.
    [Show full text]
  • Andean Community of Nations
    5(*,21$/675$7(*<$1'($1&20081,7<2)1$7,216 1 $FURQ\PV1 ACT Amazonian Cooperation Treaty AEC Project for the establishment of an common external tariff for the Andean States AIS Andean Integration System (comprises all the Andean regional institutions) ALADI Latin American Integration Association (Member States of Mercosur, the Andean Pact and Mexico, Chile and Cuba) ALALC Latin American Free Trade Association, replaced by ALADI in 1980 ALA Reg. Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992 on technical and financial and economic cooperation with the countries of Asia and Latin America ALFA Latin American Academic Training Programme ALINVEST Latin American investment programme for the promotion of relations between SMEs @LIS Latin American Information Society Programme APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (21 members)2 APIR Project for the acceleration of the regional integration process ARIP Andean Regional Indicative Programme ATPA Andean Trade Preference Act CACM Central American Common Market: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras CAF Andean Development Corporation CALIDAD Andean regional project on quality standards CAN Andean Community of Nations: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela + AIS CAPI Andean regional project for the production of agricultural and industrial studies CARICOM3 Caribbean Community DAC Development Assistance Committee of the OECD DC Developing country DFI Direct foreign investment DG Directorate-General DIPECHO ECHO Disaster Preparedness Programme EC European Community ECHO
    [Show full text]
  • Latin American and Caribbean International Institutional Law Marco Odello · Francesco Seatzu Editors
    Latin American and Caribbean International Institutional Law Marco Odello · Francesco Seatzu Editors Latin American and Caribbean International Institutional Law 1 3 Editors Marco Odello Francesco Seatzu Law and Criminology Facoltà di Giurisprudenza Aberystwyth University University of Cagliari Aberystwyth Cagliari UK Italy ISBN 978-94-6265-068-8 ISBN 978-94-6265-069-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-6265-069-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015937753 Published by T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands www.asserpress.nl Produced and distributed for T.M.C. ASSER PRESS by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg © T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the authors 2015 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Printed on acid-free paper Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Dordrecht is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Contents 1 The Economic System in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Commitment to the Development of the Region’s Nations ........ 1 Florabel Quispe Remón 2 The Latin American Integration Association ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Integration in the Andes: Law-Making by the Andean Tribunal of Justice
    Legal Integration in the Andes: Law-making by the Andean Tribunal of Justice Karen J. Alter Laurence R. Helfer Northwestern University Duke University School of Law Abstract The Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) is a copy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the third most active international court. This article reviews our findings based on an original coding of all ATJ preliminary rulings from 1984 to 2007, and over forty interviews in the region. We then compare Andean and European jurisprudence in three key areas: whether the tribunals treat the founding integration treaties as constitutions for their respective communities, whether the ATJ and ECJ have implied powers for community institutions that are not expressly enumerated in the founding treaties, and how the tribunals conceive of the relationship between community law and other international agreements that are binding on the Member States. I Introduction In 1969 Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru agreed to create a common market intended to spur regional economic development. The five Andean member countries hoped that a region- wide market would attract foreign capital, increase each state’s negotiating leverage, and induce investors to keep their profits in the region.1 The European Community (EC) model of integration fit with these larger objectives. Andean governments planned to create regional industrial programs where investments and jobs would be distributed according to differing needs of the member countries, thereby lessening economic disparities across the region.2 The Andean Pact’s founding treaty, the Cartagena Agreement,3 largely copied EC institutions, including a ‘Commission’ of national executives that adopted Andean legislation 1 W.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Trade with Latin America and the Caribbeanoverview and Figures
    EU trade with Latin America and the CaribbeanOverview and figures IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Authors: Gisela Grieger and Roderick Harte Members' Research Service October 2017 — PE 608.793 EN This publication provides an overview of trade relations between the EU and Latin American and Caribbean countries and groupings. The EU has concluded fully fledged agreements with two Latin American groupings (Cariforum and the Central America group), a multiparty trade agreement with three members of the Andean Community (Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru), and bilateral agreements with Chile and Mexico. It is currently also modernising its agreement with Mexico and intends soon to start negotiations on modernising its agreement with Chile. The EU has also concluded framework agreements with Mercosur and its individual members (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). The agreement with the former will be replaced, once the on-going negotiations on an EU-Mercosur association agreement have been completed. This publication provides recent data on trade relations between the EU and Latin American and Caribbean countries and groupings, compares the agreements governing trade relations that have already been concluded, and analyses the reasons behind the ongoing and planned negotiations on the EU-Mercosur, EU-Mexico and EU-Chile agreements. PE 608.793 ISBN 978-92-846-2007-4 doi:10.2861/881332 QA-05-17-064-EN-N Original manuscript, in English, completed in October 2017. The authors thank Odile Maisse and Giulio Sabbati for their assistance and contribution on graphics. Unless otherwise stated, all data in this publication are from Eurostat. This is a revised and updated edition of a publication from March 2016 by Enrique Gomez Ramirez, Eleni Lazarou, Laura Puccio and Giulio Sabbati.
    [Show full text]
  • V in the Last Decade, the Andean Community Countries -- Bolivia
    PREFACE In the last decade, the Andean Community countries -- Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú and Venezuela-- have undertaken significant steps toward trade liberalization and regional integration. Despite differences in size, economic structure and political arrangements, all face similar decisions regarding their development prospects, economic policies and choices. Each country must determine the appropriate path towards economic advancement and choose the best strategy through which to conduct its trade relations in the Western Hemisphere. All are linked by two current economic integration projects: the regional Andean Community and the hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). A new approach to regional arrangements in the Americas is one of the driving forces behind this volume. The Andean countries are involved in an increasingly dynamic and modern regional arrangement that will play a major role in the process of hemispheric integration. At the same time, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the United States – as a trading partner for the Andean countries and as a key player in the FTAA process. For these reasons, the coordinators and sponsors of this book, the Organization of American States (OAS), the Andean Development Corporation (CAF) and the Inter American Dialogue(IAD), decided to focus their efforts on analyzing the trade and investment relations between the Andean Community and the United States and create a better understanding of the political and economic forces underpinning the U.S.-Andean trade and investment relationship. The studies commissioned for this volume assess current trends and perspectives of U.S.-Andean economic relations. Complementing the studies, we organized a far-reaching discussion at a two-day seminar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., in September 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Cartagena Agreement
    THE CARTAGENA AGREEMENT _______________ CODIFICATION OF THE ANDEAN SUBREGIONAL INTEGRATION AGREEMENT (CARTAGENA AGREEMENT) Presentation The Protocol of Trujillo was signed by the Andean Presidents during the Eighth Presidential Council that was held in the city of Trujillo, Peru, in March of 1996. It replaces Chapter II of the Cartagena Agreement and requests that the Commission adopt a codified text through a Decision. It is in compliance with this Presidential Mandate that the Commission of the Andean Community, in its Eighty-seventh Special Term held in the city of Quito, Ecuador, on June 25, 1997, approved Decision 406: "Codification of the Andean Subregional Integration Agreement (Cartagena Agreement)". This codified text includes the original Cartagena Agreement and its respective modifying instruments: the Additional Instrument for the accession of Venezuela (1973); the Protocol of Lima (1976); the Protocol of Arequipa (1978); the Protocol of Quito (1987), and the Protocol of Trujillo. The Protocol of Trujillo, moreover, creates the Andean Community and establishes the Andean Integration System, with a series of bodies and institutions which have required that, in this text, the references "Commission of the Cartagena Agreement", "Board of the Cartagena Agreement", "Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement", and " Cartagena Agreement Law" be substituted for "Commission of the Andean Community", "General Secretariat of the Andean Community", "Court of Justice of the Andean Community", and "Andean Community Law", respectively. In addition, the Protocol of Trujillo authorizes the necessary adjustments to the numbering of the articles, for which reason the numbering of the articles of the previous Codified Text (Decision 236) does not necessarily coincide with the present numbering (Decision 406).
    [Show full text]
  • A Road Map for Better Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Connecting the Dots: A Road Map for Better Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean Mesquita Moreira, Mauricio and Blyde, Juan and Giordano, Paolo and Rodriguez Chatruc, Marisol and Li, Kun and Harris, Jeremy and Lucenti, Krista IDB May 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/102289/ MPRA Paper No. 102289, posted 29 Aug 2020 09:10 UTC CONNECTING THE DOTS A ROAD MAP FOR BETTER INTEGRATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Special Report on Integration and Trade CONTENTS Prologue vii Acknowledgments ix In Brief xi Introduction 1 Section 1: Why Integration? 5 Section 2: LAC’s Journey to Integration: How and How Far Did It Go? 11 Section 3: A Quarter of a Century Later: What Are the Results? 39 Section 4: The Road to the Promised Land 73 Section 5: Estimating the Gains 91 Wrapping Up 121 Boxes Section 2 Box 1. What are Rules of Origin (RoOs)? 13 Box 2. The Central American Common Market (CACM) 16 Box 3. The Andean Community (CAN) 17 Box 4. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) 18 Box 5. The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) 20 Box 6. The Pacific Alliance (PA) 22 IV CONNECTING THE DOTS Section 3 Box 3.1. MERCOSUR’s Trade Diversion Puzzle: The Automotive Industry 53 Section 4 Box 4.1. Can RoO Cumulation be Extended to Common Third Parties? 75 Section 5 Box 5.1. Chile–US PTA and Sourcing from Third Countries 94 Box 5.2. Cumulation of Rules of Origin across Mexico and Central America 99 Box 5.3.
    [Show full text]